The AFT’s Endorsement of Hillary Clinton Is an Insult to Union Democracy

[marmar]

from In These Times:



The AFT’s Endorsement of Hillary Clinton Is an Insult to Union Democracy
BY LOIS WEINER


On Saturday, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) announced that its executive council “overwhelmingly” endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president. It did so, the official announcement says, on the basis of interviews (not released to members) and the results of a poll.

The decision couldn’t be more wrongheaded, and it’s one that members should demand the union executive council rescind. We should propose instead a decision reached by a very different process: a referendum of members that follows and is informed by debate in union outlets.

Every local should be charged by the executive council with providing space and place for members to air their opinions. The national union should encourage use of its magazine and website for this debate. In this discussion the leadership will have the opportunity to persuade members that endorsing Clinton is the wisest choice, but it will be obligated to carry out the will of the membership as expressed in the referendum.

What is most destructive in the AFT’s endorsement of Clinton is that it has disempowered members at precisely the moment when we most need revitalized teachers unions to save a system of education that is being destroyed as a public good by powerful elites and the politicians they control.

Instead, a rushed decision was made without any semblance of legitimacy. The questions and answers about the process offer few specifics except that the national union conducted polls of members and interviews with (some) candidates. According to the union, the endorsement was made based on this information, though people who know Washington politics have been aware for many years of the public love fest between AFT President Randi Weingarten and Clinton. The process of seeking member opinion was an embarrassingly transparent cover for Weingarten’s longstanding desire that Clinton be the AFT’s candidate. ........(more)

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/18184/AFT_endorsement_clinton

[boston bean]

1. OMG, are the Bernsters that upset with this endorsement?

They think Bernie should have gotten it, I presume?

If not Bernie, who else should have gotten?

This is getting beyond ridiculous.

[LWolf]

12. "In These Times" is

an independent, nonprofit magazine, is dedicated to advancing democracy and economic justice, informing movements for a more humane world, and providing an accessible forum for debate about the policies that shape our future.

In 1976, author and historian James Weinstein founded In These Times with the mission to "identify and clarify the struggles against corporate power now multiplying in American society."

Weinstein (1926-2005) was joined in establishing this independent magazine of news, culture and opinion by noted intellectuals Daniel Ellsberg, E.P. Thompson, Noam Chomsky, Barbara Ehrenreich, Julian Bond and Herbert Marcuse, all of whom were among the original sponsors of the magazine (see full list of founding sponsors below). Thirty-four years later, those sponsors now number in the thousands--as a not-for-profit publication, In These Times, like all political magazines on both the left and the right, has survived with the help of readers who make donations above and beyond the cost of their subscriptions.

http://inthesetimes.com/about

While I suspect their focus on economic justice and struggles against corporate power would make them favor Sanders, they certainly aren't "Bernsters."

[onehandle]

2. And yet she's still going to be our next President.

[Le Taz Hot]

3. Very powerful article.

Thanks for posting.

[NCTraveler]

4. A large union endorses a strong progressive.

Republicans heads explode!!!

[LWolf]

10. Sorry, but they're not Republicans. :)

In These Times, an independent, nonprofit magazine, is dedicated to advancing democracy and economic justice, informing movements for a more humane world, and providing an accessible forum for debate about the policies that shape our future.

In 1976, author and historian James Weinstein founded In These Times with the mission to "identify and clarify the struggles against corporate power now multiplying in American society."

Weinstein (1926-2005) was joined in establishing this independent magazine of news, culture and opinion by noted intellectuals Daniel Ellsberg, E.P. Thompson, Noam Chomsky, Barbara Ehrenreich, Julian Bond and Herbert Marcuse, all of whom were among the original sponsors of the magazine (see full list of founding sponsors below). Thirty-four years later, those sponsors now number in the thousands--as a not-for-profit publication, In These Times, like all political magazines on both the left and the right, has survived with the help of readers who make donations above and beyond the cost of their subscriptions.

http://inthesetimes.com/about

[NCTraveler]

13. Nice.

I'm still very comfortable with my point.

With such a foolish headline they serve the same purpose. Make the country feel uncomfortable with progressive language. They often do serve the same purpose.

[LWolf]

15. A left wing journal

criticizes an endorsement and Republican heads explode?

What point are you trying to make? Are the left now Republicans?

[NCTraveler]

16. I am amused by people scratching their heads as to why....

I am amused by people scratching their heads as to why a large union would endorse one of the most popular progressives today. I'm just having fun. And yes, those who don't get this often do serve the same purpose as republicans. The exact same purpose. Please get me my fainting couch, I can't figure out why a union would back a strong progressive. I just don't get it. lol. It's really too funny.

Pretty clear the union made a good move. The most they have had to deal with is a petition that couldn't even get twenty thousand people to sign it. A union with well over a million members, the petition wasn't open to members only, and support was anemic at best. These articles are just elites amusing themselves as the rest of us get real shit done.

The only better card they could have played would have been to support O'Malley.

[LWolf]

17. We know why the AFT backed Clinton,

and it has nothing to do with her "progressive" credentials, lol.

Are all the pissed off AFT members just "elites amusing themselves?"

[NCTraveler]

20. I don't know. I don't see them running around with their hair on fire trying to....

figure out why such a large union would back a solid progressive.

Still, their best move would have been to back O'Malley. We don't seem to be the ones crying over this though.

A major union backs a strong progressive and a very small but vocal group are crying spilled milk. It's simply amusing.

[LWolf]

21. You don't see them running around with their hair on fire,

but you must not be paying any attention to what they are saying.

Small but vocal group?

I don't think so. Vocal, yes. Small, no.

[NCTraveler]

22. Very small actually.

I hear them and they are making the case for Hillary. Their whole argument is based on a strong progressive having union connections. Every person seems to be the same. A pissed of Sanders supporter. Get this. The argument is that a solid progressive has union connections. It's absurd. Same as you saying it isn't small. The petition didn't even take off. It's support is anemic.

[LWolf]

23. Nope.

The fact is that the endorsement sparked a whole host of people mounting opposition.

That's actually not a bad thing, from my perspective. It sure gets the issues heard.

[NCTraveler]

25. It does get it heard.

And Hillary loves it. A very large union is getting on board with Hillary and the country is finding out. They are also watching groups attack Hillary and a large union. Republicans favorite past time. Trust me, you have tons of friends to union bash with. I stand with unions. I stand with progressives.

"The fact is that the endorsement sparked a whole host of people mounting opposition."

The internet is a funny thing.

[LWolf]

26. Do you stand with union members

that don't want their executive board using processes that are less than democratic and making decisions that appear to be based more on cronyism than what the rank and file want?

[London Lover Man]

24. Except for the fact that Weingarten got it wrong

and she is facing backlashes and will have to do something about it and SOON.

[HooptieWagon]

19. "Strong progressive"

[HooptieWagon]

5. Hillary got the endorsement of the Executive Council...

Presided over by a board member of Hillarys Super PAC. BFD. It's the rank and file membership that does the canvassing and phone-banking, and it appears a whole lot of them will be doing so for Bernie. If Weingartners job was to deliver the union to Hillary, it looks like her clumsy attempt just blew up in her face, and reflects poorly on the Clinton Campaign as being another example of her elitism and undemocratic behavior.

[brooklynite]

14. Well then, good to know there'll be a lot of AFT members canvassing and phone-banking for Clinton...

Hillary Clinton enjoys overwhelming support as AFT members’ first choice to be the Democratic presidential nominee.
Fully two-thirds (67%) of Democratic primary voters pick Clinton, giving her a commanding 48-point lead over Bernie Sanders (19%) while O’Malley, Webb, and Chafee all receive no more than 1% of the vote. Clinton is the clear first choice among every division within AFT.

[DanTex]

6. Because "democracy" means putting the views of 19% of members ahead of the views of 67%.

Obviously.

[silenttigersong]

7. Obviously

This was done because of Bernie Sanders momentum.BOOM

[SidDithers]

8. ...

Sid

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. ....

DSB

[brooklynite]

11. Representative democracy...

(also indirect democracy or psephocracy) is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.

[silenttigersong]

18. Why blame Bernie supporters?

It very well could be many Clinton supporters that are upset with the process.But to do that you would have to do another poll,either way ,Clinton could lose support because of it .